OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

Lies and Creationism

Entry 274, on 2006-01-24 at 14:26:46 (Rating 4, Comments)

I have recently been reading a book called "Evolution and the Modern Christian". Its designed to show that strict Biblical creationism is true, and modern scientific theories which contradict it are wrong. The person who lent it to me realised it was unlikely to convert me to Christianity, and he was right.

I always get a bit upset (hence the need to blog about it) after reading this type of book because its just so full of incorrect information, out of date theories, misunderstandings, and just plain lies. Many of the points which seem to contradict evolution have been answered years ago, and yet the creationists continue to use them. I guess its like Goebbels (Nazi Germany propaganda minister) said: tell a lie often enough, and it becomes the truth.

One of their favourite pieces of "evidence against evolution" is the lack of transitional fossils. Its just not true. There are many transitional fossils which cannot be interpreted in any other reasonable way. Yet the creationists (and many intelligent designers, who are really just a more subtle form of creationist) just cannot accept that they exist.

Here's an imaginary debate between a scientist and creationist which illustrates the point (thanks to Graviton for the idea)...

Creationist: Evolution is clearly not true.
Evolutionist: Why do you say that?
Creationist: There is no evidence supporting evolution.
Evolutionist: What about transitional fossils?
Creationist: But there aren't any.
Evolutionist: Have you seen archaeopteryx, whale transition fossils, etc?
Creationist: They aren't real transitional forms.
Evolutionist: Scientists think they are, what evidence do you have that the aren't.
Creationist: There's plenty of evidence. Read this book about creationism by a real scientist.
Evolutionist: If he's a real scientist with evidence against evolution, why didn't he publish it in scientific journals?
Creationist: Because they are all biased, and want to support evolution even though they know its not true.
Evolutionist: So you are saying there is a global conspiracy to support evolution against creationism?
Creationist: Yes.
Evolutionist: So you wouldn't accept any scientific evidence, because it might be part of this conspiracy?
Creationist: That's right.
Evolutionist: So it doesn't really matter what scientific evidence is discovered, you will still believe creationism?
Creationist: I would accept it if it supported creationism, but scientists won't let people see that sort of evidence.
Evolutionist: So you won't believe in a scientific theory no matter how much evidence is produced to support it.
Creationist: I've decided what I want to believe. Please don't confuse me with the facts.

OK, I know a creationist wouldn't really make that last statement. But that is effectively what it is all about! And if they are so close minded that they aren't prepared to change their beliefs when new evidence is produced then they are really just fooling themselves.

I mean, do they really believe that almost all modern science is wrong? For creationism to be true, scientists working in fields such as biology, astronomy, geology, physics, chemistry, archaeology, and many others would all have to be wrong. And the millions of pieces of independent evidence would have to be false. What's more likely: all of that is untrue, or an ancient book mostly written by primitive tribes (the Bible) is untrue? I think we all know the answer to that!

Comment 62 (543) by Anonymous on 2007-03-22 at 00:38:56: (view earlier comments)

Trust me, I know PLENTY of Christians that know way more information on that kind of stuff than some atheists. I am sorry about saying any atheist, I meant some.

No, I would not rather have hope than facts. That is why I have both and yes, that is the way I want to live. I believe, with supporting facts, that the Bible is true. To me, the big bang seems stupid, but hey, that's just me. I am not here to criticize you or your beliefs. I am just here to tell you about mine.

Comment 63 (549) by OJB on 2007-03-22 at 09:14:10:

OK, so now what you say sounds more likely. You know plenty of Christians who know more about the topic than some atheists. OK, I can accept that, because there are plenty of ignorant atheists around!

You keep telling me you believe the Bible partly because of the supporting facts, but I have never seen a single supporting fact yet. I can give you many which contradict the Bible, though.

The Big Bang might seem stupid to you but that's probably because you don't know the facts. Let me ask you this. If you saw the following undisputed facts what would you think? ...

1. Many years ago radio engineers found a strange "noise" in their antenna which came from every direction in space. At the same time, independently cosmologists predicted this should exist if the Big Bang happened. The spectrum matches precisely.

2. Astronomers have discovered that galaxies are all moving apart from each other at a speed proportional to their distance. If you play this expansion backwards you reach a point where everything was jammed together in a singularity.

3. if you calculate what elements the Universe should be made from if a Big Bang happened, then look at the actual abundance, they match precisely.

If there was no Big Bang then how do you explain that? We can actually *see* the Big Bang. That's what the background radiation is! I think its stupid *not* to believe that.

Comment 64 (561) by Anonymous on 2007-03-23 at 02:59:14:

Okay, we all know that there are some facts that lead to the big bang but there are alot of facts leading to God as well.

You cannot prove the Bible wrong. It is humanly impossible. Yeah, you might have somethings supporting evolution, but everything the scientists come up with just make themselves look more foolish. I have been doing some research and it is just funny how some people feel and I know some people only share their disgust instead of telling the facts on why they feel that way. So, I think it is stupid *not* to believe in God.

Comment 65 (567) by OJB on 2007-03-23 at 08:20:00:

You say there are facts supporting god. OK, let's hear some. I have shown you facts supporting my views, why not do the same in return? Just saying "there are a lot of facts leading to god" without taking it any further is a waste of time. Just show me some facts!

I can prove the Bible is wrong. I have shown where it is wrong in many places on the first page here. Take a look and tell me where I'm wrong. The Bible is mostly fiction, its as simple as that.

So you've been doing some research eh? Why not share your wisdom here and tell me what you've discovered supporting your views and dismissing mine. That should be entertaining.

Would you also like to take my challenge by answering the questions here.

Comment 66 (576) by Anonymous on 2007-03-26 at 08:48:35:

I read the creation analysis you wanted me too and answered back to a few of the things you said about that part of a verse but not all of it yet. Here are my notes:

[I moved this comment to the discusison system on the page involved, here.]

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.